2 other high ranks individually decided that they would like to play with this(these) high rank(s) because they assume one with a higher rank has more skill.

Team 2

Private joins game. Likes the map, settings, wants to win points?Cook joins game. Cooks usually aren't worried about their score.You join game. I have no idea why, looking to try to get a lot of points if you win, and lose little if you don't?

I'm not sure how something can be 'rigged' if you were able to look at the game, see who your partners would be, and still choose to join it! Come on!

I could see this being an interesting option, but not something static. I think the number of team games played would increase dramatically, as, in my experience, the only team games being played now are generally tournament games or those started with a team already in place.

I agree that these team games are clogging up the "Join A Game" section as there are simply so many quad games up that they can never fill quickly.

Those people who don't have a set team could then join a "random team" game, in which all the players are randomly assigned so they aren't joining a game with 3 random people against a well oiled machine.

Definitely don't take away the current settings, but adding this as an option could be very beneficial.

I think that you should only be able to join games with people of a similar rank. The better you do and more points you earn the better players you can play. simple fix. like 2 ranks in either direction of your rank.

Sorry, I'd rather be having fun and playing my turns with my real-life friends, rather than being stuck with a clueless, ignorant chef. Not a great idea in my opinion, and at the very most, it should be an option. The only use I can see for this is for inner-clan practice games.

I'm tired of taking on 4 brigadiers with 3 cooks, there should be an option to make random teams, or matched point values. Is it just me or do others want to get rid of all those games that are clearly experienced players preying on beginners?

It seems the general consensus is that randomized teams should be an option, and that more people would play triples games if it were created, but there are still a few people (mostly with high rank) that would stick with their set teams.

obliterationX wrote:Sorry, I'd rather be having fun and playing my turns with my real-life friends, rather than being stuck with a clueless, ignorant chef. Not a great idea in my opinion, and at the very most, it should be an option. The only use I can see for this is for inner-clan practice games.

Joodoo wrote:high ranked players being in the same team does not mean they're teaming up on newbs, it's just because those high ranked players trust each other...

Its almost like new player farming.

yes, that is occasionally true, but this option would only encourage high ranked players to join/create private team games because they may not want to be in the same team with a low ranked player...the good thing is this could stop newb farming, but it could also increase the "segregation" (as in they don't play with each other often) between low ranked and high ranked players...

jonka wrote:I'm tired of taking on 4 brigadiers with 3 cooks, there should be an option to make random teams, or matched point values. Is it just me or do others want to get rid of all those games that are clearly experienced players preying on beginners?

jonka wrote:I'm tired of taking on 4 brigadiers with 3 cooks, there should be an option to make random teams, or matched point values. Is it just me or do others want to get rid of all those games that are clearly experienced players preying on beginners?

laci_mae wrote:...but we typically just stick to tourneys b/c joining public games is too risky.

What's risky about joining a public game?

All my CC friends are casual players that I don't know in person. Attempting to set a time to find and sign up for games together is a nightmare. There should be more options to allow players to join half-filled public games w/their friends. This might include some version of being able to "save spots" for a reasonable amount of time.

laci_mae wrote:There should be more options to allow players to join half-filled public games w/their friends. This might include some version of being able to "save spots" for a reasonable amount of time.

So you want to play with certain people? That is why they made Private games.

You guys are still missing the point. There are already plenty of ways to make sure certain people end up on your team. Heck, if you are afraid of Private games you can even create public games until your ideal teammates join and leave any games where players lower than [whatever rank] join your team. This is not likely to change, so quit whining about problems that aren't problems.

There is NOT a way to keep (team) games roughly even without rigging teams (inviting friends, whatever). Random teams would help this. At this point I have basically stopped playing on CC, and this was the major reason why. Playing evenly-matched games should not require large amounts of work.

The deeper problem is that people are too worried about ranks, and that is why they are afraid to join team games with non-ideal teammates. I already suggested a way to fix that (viewtopic.php?f=4&t=30780) but it was rejected.

I have wanted this for a long time and never really understood why it was rejected before.

I have no problem with people who want to play each other on "set" teams. The problem is that I can't start a team game unless I do have a set group ready to play. If I try, over half the games wind up filled with "pouncers". I just don't play teams any more for that reason.

The one problem I can see is lop-sided teams. That is, one team could theoretically wind up with 2 majors and 2 cooks just through random selection. However, that is no worse than the current system.

laci_mae wrote:There should be more options to allow players to join half-filled public games w/their friends. This might include some version of being able to "save spots" for a reasonable amount of time.

So you want to play with certain people? That is why they made Private games.

You guys are still missing the point. There are already plenty of ways to make sure certain people end up on your team. Heck, if you are afraid of Private games you can even create public games until your ideal teammates join and leave any games where players lower than [whatever rank] join your team. This is not likely to change, so quit whining about problems that aren't problems.

There is NOT a way to keep (team) games roughly even without rigging teams (inviting friends, whatever). Random teams would help this. At this point I have basically stopped playing on CC, and this was the major reason why. Playing evenly-matched games should not require large amounts of work.

The deeper problem is that people are too worried about ranks, and that is why they are afraid to join team games with non-ideal teammates. I already suggested a way to fix that (viewtopic.php?f=4&t=30780) but it was rejected.

I'm going to try very hard not to take this post personally. Your tone and implications are quite insulting.

The point I was trying to make is that, for casual players, the options for maneuvering into team games could be improved. After all, improvement is the goal of the suggestions forum. Not just "whining about problems that aren't problems", which, incidentally, doesn't really even make sense.

Your advice to simply leave games when certain others join is not always possible. Games that idle, half-full, for weeks can fill in a matter of minutes.

More to the point, you say that "There is NOT a way to keep (team) games roughly even without rigging teams." Even-matching (based on ranks or some other criterion) is not my objective. When I see a long list of public games (that are the exact same settings & teammates), I know that this is likely a good, experienced team. I would like to challenge them with my own team. However, the current system is not optimized for that situation. To make it happen, I've got to get everyone online at the same time, pass out the game numbers, and hope that no one else jumps in the way. Instead, we could have a simple option that would improve team game joining for some people.

We do agree on one major point, "Playing evenly-matched games should not require large amounts of work." Perhaps, more evenly matched team games would be created if there was a better way for one person to get his or her team matched up against teams that have already staked out a bunch of games.

2 other high ranks individually decided that they would like to play with this(these) high rank(s) because they assume one with a higher rank has more skill.

Team 2

Private joins game. Likes the map, settings, wants to win points?Cook joins game. Cooks usually aren't worried about their score.You join game. I have no idea why, looking to try to get a lot of points if you win, and lose little if you don't?

I'm not sure how something can be 'rigged' if you were able to look at the game, see who your partners would be, and still choose to join it! Come on!

Randomizing the teams would be... interesting?.... I'd never use it.

First, this would be an option.. no one would have to use it.

Second, your scenerio is not realistic.

The TRUTH is that I have started team games as a private, Sergeant, etc. Maybe a major even joins, maybe not. Then I find a group of "ready made" teammates who join.

The OTHER thing that happens is a game will start, again, maybe there is a major, a sergeant, etc. However this is not a "set" team. It is just a group who happens to want to play, probably having played few team games before. Then POUNCE, in comes that ready made team. This is farming at its worst. I know of many people, myself included, who plain avoid team games because we just don't have set teams, don't have the time or ability to form them. This gives those of you who do this a few extra points, yes, but drives everyone else away from teams. I fail to see how that either enhances the true spirit of honest competition or enhances the CC playing experience for the majority.

The THIRD thing that happens is, yes, that a "set" team will start a game. It used to be that they would pretty much have to join as a set. IN that case, I would say "player beware", if they started the game. If they came in after the first team was formed -- FARMING (and "shame on you!" for taking advantage)

HOWEVER, Now, all they have to do is for someone to start the game, then two people from the "set" team join, one on each team. Some one coming will look and see "hey, these teams seem pretty even". THEN, the high ranked player quits and rejoins with his "favorite" teammates and that team quickly fills up with high ranked players. Or, maybe not such high rankers, but a "set" team that plays together an knows each other's moves. The PROBLEM is that those joining the game without a set team have no way to really know this is happening. In fact, they may try to avoid this situation, but find themselves "trapped" if they are not quick enough to realize that their opposing team is now mostly majors (or just a set team).

AGAIN, I don't think anyone really has a problem with players coming together. The problem is that right now, we have no way of knowing if we are going to face a "set" team or "just a group of players". Randomizing the teams would do this.

On a related note, I have made another suggestion. It is to allow people to have "designated teams". Then, you could join as a team and everyone would know, up front, that you had joined as a team. The points, etc would be calculated just like now. The ONLY difference would be that the team would be listed as a "designated team".

Yes, I'm bumping a year-old thread. But it's only because I came to suggest something that's already been suggested.

As a player without regular teammates, I don't want to join a trips or quads game against 3 or 4 majors/brigadiers when I have no clue who will be joining my team. However, I wouldn't mind joining a game with 6/8 players who were then randomly divided into teams. It may also be a new way for people to meet & become teammates later on.

I can't understand why someone would give a "loud NO" to this. It would only be an option for team games; they could still be played as normal. Since no moderator ever commented on this, and it was never "rejected", I thought I'd bring it into discussion again.

I like this idea. It would provide a good mixture of partners. I used to play frequently with subjekt, yet even during that time it was good to play with other people. It could provide an interesting experience without being "raped" by frequent teams.

max is gr8 wrote:I like this idea. It would provide a good mixture of partners. I used to play frequently with subjekt, yet even during that time it was good to play with other people. It could provide an interesting experience without being "raped" by frequent teams.

A very large number of good players don't go to callouts. Callouts sucks unless you want to play a game with specific rules. Tournaments with random players don't come around as frequently as they used to.